The subject matter discussed in the background section should not be assumed to be prior art merely as a result of its mention in the background section. Similarly, a problem mentioned in the background section or associated with the subject matter of the background section should not be assumed to have been previously recognized in the prior art. The subject matter in the background section merely represents different approaches, which in and of themselves may also be inventions.
Desks for computers are well known. However, desks for computer use may be uncomfortable to use. Consequently, a need exists for an ergonomically designed computer workstation to, not only, reduce physical problems computer workers encounter every day, but also improve our interactions to current computer technology. Many people have become fascinated by touch computing and want this more intuitive style of computing integrated into our computerized workplace. Large, touch-enabled monitors are now commercially available, but no desk or monitor mount fully accommodates the ergonomic needs of a human to properly interact with touch technology, on such a large scale.
The novelty of this computer work desk provides support for a large-format, thin, flat-screen monitor as the computer interface, and a standard keyboard and mouse platform mounted below for traditional options for input. The flexible height and tilt controls combined with the constantly-level keyboard tray provide an improved, comfortable balance between large-format, touch computing and traditional work station configurations. This invention is optimized to improve human comfort and the computing experience. It is designed around people, to fit people.
The earliest patents that related closest to ergonomic desk solution related to drafting tables and a wide variety of other technology related to four topics; 1) How to raise and lower the table top using a single column support with counterweights, brake systems, cables, pulleys, ball screws, springs, and motors. These are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. Chesnut (U.S. Pat. No. 4,154,173), Laport (U.S. Pat. No. 4,351,245), Watt (U.S. Pat. No. 4,981,085), Nagy et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,174,223), Ransit (U.S. Pat. No. 6,038,986), Winchell (U.S. Pat. No. 5,408,940), Reneau (U.S. Pat. No. 5,461,974), Agee (U.S. Pat. No. 6,119,605), and Harbin (U.S. Pat. No. 6,286,794). 2) How to control the tabletop tilt angle, mounted only upon a stationary shaft. These are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. Cooper (U.S. Pat. No. 4,880,270), Leonard (U.S. Pat. No. 5,450,800), Monroe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,671,091) and Coonan et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,394,402). 3) How to integrate and mount computer monitors to surfaces using shafts, brackets, and counterweights. These are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. Wolters (U.S. Pat. No. 4,735,466), Ugalde (U.S. Pat. No. 5,480,224), Godwin (U.S. Pat. No. 7,100,517), and Dragusin (U.S. Pat. No. 7,322,653). 4) How keyboard trays mounted to desks using gears, springs, arms, and levers. These are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. Hampshire et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,890,561), Wacker (U.S. Pat. No. 5,287,815), Lubinskas et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,398,622), Randolf (U.S. Pat. No. 5,437,235), Webb (U.S. Pat. No. 5,735,222), Moore (U.S. Pat. No. 5,845,586), and Kochanski (U.S. Pat. No. 6,533,479). The novelty of this invention is the elegant balance in combinations of prior art concepts, both improving and simplifying a combination of technologies into an updated solution, closer to the goal of improving the human condition.
Various attempts at display terminals, keyboards and workstations have tried to prevent repetitive stress injuries and reduce discomfort related to sitting at a computer. Most prior art ignores the advances of current computing technology, and neglects the need for a user to quickly adjust the monitor support in a more complete way that allows a more immersive and flexible computing environment. Some prior art, U.S. Patents Dragusin (U.S. Pat. No. 7,322,653), Moglin et al (U.S. Pat. No. 7,134,719), Danna (U.S. Pat. No. 6,874,431), Tholkes (U.S. Pat. No. 6,439,657), Larkin et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6,296,408), Kapushinski (U.S. Pat. No. 6,270,157), and Cooper (U.S. Pat. No. 5,056,864), (U.S. Pat. No. 4,880,270), restrict user positions, relegating them to a stationary chair mounted to a desk configuration. Prior art, U.S. patents Seeley et al (U.S. Pat. No. 7,721,658), Beck et al (U.S. Pat. No. 7,690,317), Long (U.S. Pat. No. 6,484,648), Ko (U.S. Pat. No. 6,135,032), Agee (U.S. Pat. No. 6,119,605), and Wacker et al (U.S. Pat. No. 5,443,017) place design focus on single or multiple, horizontal computing surfaces that allow height adjust without much tilt adjustment. Few designs combine full tilt and height adjustment for such heavy devices.
Other representatives of the prior art attempts are the designs disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. E. Laxo (U.S. Pat. No. 2,605,156), F. G. R. Lawes (U.S. Pat. No. 2,710,780), J. Gelb (U.S. Pat. No. 3,232,248), F. R. Amthor et al (U.S. Pat. No. 3,273,517), Kooi (U.S. Pat. No. 3,364,881), Brown (U.S. Pat. No. 4,638,969), Randolph (U.S. Pat. No. 5,680,820), Richard (U.S. Pat. No. 5,857,415), and Walser (U.S. Pat. No. 6,374,752). These prior art designs appear to be steps in the right direction, but are outdated and fail to provide the intuitive technology to adequately address current computing technology needs and allow users to adjust their computing platform to optimum positions, quickly and easily.
Other mentions of similar concepts in ergonomic desks combining with touch computing solutions don't really address the combination of technologies in a successful balance. Most of the projects come from research projects based around usability and functions of touch computing on large-scale monitors. Most of these address one part of the technology solution. The novelty of this invention maximizes both to the benefit of the user.
Some of these articles are:                Leitner, Jakob. “FLUX—A Tilting Multi-Touch and Pen Based Surface.” Media Interaction Lab, Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences, Hagenberg, Austria, Apr. 4, 2009.        Kin, Kenrick; Agrawala, Maneesh; DeRose, Tony. “Determining the Benefits of Direct-Touch, Bimanual, and Multifinger Input on a Multitouch Workstation.” University of California, Berkeley, 2010.        
Other previous product inspirations include: Anthro—Elevate line of creative workstations; Ideum—MT-50 Multi-touch Table; Microsoft—Surface table; iTable—PQLabs, Ergotron—Neo-Flex® Mobile MediaCenter VHD, WorkFit C-Mod Sit-Stand Workstation {patent applications held #20020088910, 0040035989, 005014576, 20060185563}
And still more inspirations come previous patent applications that are relevant to prior art include: Brown (2008/0033893), and Hardt (2007/0266913) for innovations related to raising and lowering the top, Papic et al. (2010/0327136) as related to the use of braking levers and compression calipers to allow for adjustable tilt controls, and Holt (2006/0238087) for matters related to the concept of combining computer technology with that of desks.